Building control, what's the point?

[R D S]

Bought a premises recently, sat in the solicitors 5 months in, turns out there's no building control sign off on work that has been done but it's 'OK' because they've arranged an indemnity policy in case it becomes a problem.

The seller has paid for this insurance and it's worked out much cheaper than getting building control involved.

I can see that it could be worth getting the sign off in case it had an effect when negotiating the purchase price but what is confusing me is that i'd have thought that if building control sign off was needed, then that was the top and bottom of it?

[TimW]

Building Regulations can be inappropriate and Building inspectors can be arses. Sometimes a builder/owner/developer just takes the view they aren't going to comply. sometimes a purchaser might have to take a view on that too. Unlikely to happen over major issues.

TW

[spuorgelgoog]

The indemnity policy covers you against the council taking enforcement action, which they can't do after one year unless the property is actually dangerous.

Having a Building Control certificate gives some assurance that the work was at least intended to comply with Building Regs.

Owain

[John Rumm]

These indemnity policies seem to be money for old rope. Since in most cases they are issued long past the cut off date for any action that could be taken by LABC.

[Brian Gaff]

So the sweatshop turns out to be a death trap which insurance company is going to compensate the dead peoples relatives. I wonder if this is what they are doing with all these bodged up tower blocks with the dodgy plumbing windows and cladding? Sounds like the sort of thing that can go on in the Indian Subcontinent. Brian

[tim...]

I once looked at a flat up for auction, which whilst chatting with a neighbouring owner during the wait for the agent, informed me that the building did not have BC sign off (and were thus unsellable to anyone who needs a mortgage).

From my limited knowledge of BC, I surmised that the sign off was not forthcoming because the flats had no secondary means of escape in case of fire. This was because it was a conversion from offices (before the new rules) originally with air con and thus there were no openable windows in the rooms except tiny top lights (not large enough to get a person through, even if you could reach them). They were originally put up for sale during the height of the boom, when any old rubbish sold at top prices with no-one checking the paperwork (no, not joking)

I walked

it's one of these:

some of you my know it :-)

BTW, none of the flats reached the reserve when I looked. It was quite a bit higher than the above guide (but still a substantial loss on the original purchase price)

tim

[John Rumm]

Not having a completion cert does not preclude getting a mortgage - it depends on the actual circumstances. When I bought this place there was no completion sign off for the loft conversion work the previous owners had done. There was a trail of BC inspections etc but they never bothered to "complete" them. Everyone took the view the work was done to a proper plan, and had been standing for 20 odd years without any problems, so it was a non issue.

The current rules (for three story domestic stuff anyway) have moved away from secondary escape routes in many cases now. Usually favouring protecting the main route of escape instead. So sometimes you might find you can get stuff regularised that would not have passed at the time it was done.